FPV GT-F outpowers HSV GTS The Aussie horsepower king has been identified & we are surprised as any1

[Sorted]

The Aussie horsepower king has been identified. And we're as surprised as anyone...

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/spor...ampaign=buffer

Prepare for an Internet meltdown. The dyno figures are in and it's official, Ford Performance Vehicles' GT-F out-powers the Holden Special Vehicles GTS.

The forums have been raging since Ford unveiled the last ever FPV, the GT-F. Although it claims 351kW, the FPV engineers said then and there that the supercharged V8 Falcon was good for more. And clearly they weren't telling fibs…

Holden Special Vehicles GTS was launched in 2013 and on the spec sheet significantly out powers the Falcon with 430kW vs 351kW.

But now we've settled the argument. Or at the very least ignited a new one.

Same day, same dyno, same conditions... And the figures are in.

Ford Performance Vehicles GT-F
348.6kW at the rear wheels
721Nm at the rear wheels

Holden Special Vehicles GTS
339.6kW at the rear wheels
751Nm at the rear wheels

And yes, we are as dumbstruck as anyone.

Let the comments begin... And stay tuned for more on our Ultimate Aussie Muscle Car shootout.

Both autos, both had multiple runs. Nine runs in the FPV because we wanted to check it, double check it, and 4 runs for the HSV. As is convention, the runs were undertaken in fourth gear for both bruisers

[Whitey-AMG]

More KW but less torque. Even Stevens then.

[Nikked]

Don't ask Wheels about their test...


Needless to say, the HSV was on top...

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Don't ask Wheels about their test...


Needless to say, the HSV was on top...

Ok so bogans don't use the internet and buy magazines ........

[fgpsi]

Meltdownzzzzzz brooooooo

[theboxmike]

Well what do you know as usual Holden/HSV overstating there power figures? Surely not never!

[nstg8a]

Lol at the dyno owner saying it's consistent with past gt's and gts's... He doesn't mention they are also used by HSv to test their own vehicles.

I don't think any s/c gt on this forum has dynoed that low has it?

Even ford says that's the number they would expect from a heat soaked 335 or a heat soaked 351 that had fuel issues

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Lol at the dyno owner saying it's consistent with past gt's and gts's... He doesn't mention they are also used by HSv to test their own vehicles.

I don't think any s/c gt on this forum has dynoed that low has it?

Even ford says that's the number they would expect from a heat soaked 335 or a heat soaked 351 that had fuel issues

thats right. A very quick look on utube of stock GTS dynos shows 330rwkws as about the max....most are below that and even as low as high 200s. And yes like you say.....just about every 335 GT has dynoed well above 300, 315-335rwkws most times!

And that tuner mentioned in the first wheels article Nikked linked, is a noob. He's a lieing homo if he's dynoed the GTF at 311 and thinks that's it.
Not to mention the farce about the HSZ not being strapped down properly! and they got busted! then passed it off as setup runs before they did the proper runs where they tied it down properly what a dousche!

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by theboxmike

Well what do you know as usual Holden/HSV overstating there power figures? Surely not never!

Uh seriously? 430KW wouldn't be far off 340RWKW at all, more like Ford understating like normal.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by _Ben

Uh seriously? 430KW wouldn't be far off 340RWKW at all, more like Ford understating like normal.

That's a pretty big driveline loss though, as others have stated the GTS has a lot of heavy duty gear but does it equate to that much loss?

Not sure if HSV/GMH quote engine power figures without accessories? I think Ford Aus and Ford NA both quote engine power figures without accessories.

[XBGTFGGTP]

Not sure if HSV/GMH quote engine power figures without accessories? I think Ford Aus and Ford NA both quote engine power figures without accessories.[/QUOTE]

Ford quote their power figures complete with all accessories. Holdem/HIV quote less hence numbers don't stack. It's for all the queens who want the biggest techno number but never actually use it.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by _Ben

Uh seriously? 430KW wouldn't be far off 340RWKW at all, more like Ford understating like normal.

Correct but most stock HSV's are only making around 320rwkw.

Let's take an average figure of 328rwkw after a 22% powertrain loss and we get 420kW at the flywheel (HSV are overstating).

This GT-F made 348rwkw, taking an average output of 335rwkw equals 409kW at the engine. (FPV claims 404kW)

[351capri]

Originally Posted by theboxmike

Well what do you know as usual Holden/HSV overstating there power figures? Surely not never!

all day , every day .... HOLDEN

[fgpsi]

Wheels are full of poo

Bloody might aswell be official hsv magazine

[mik]

No one could ever complain either of these cars haven't got enough grunt, very impressive both cars.

[Trump]

The big question now is, will the GT-F be able to put all that power down to the road and make the most of the prodigious power and torque?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The big question now is, will the GT-F be able to put all that power down to the road and make the most of the prodigious power and torque?

no.

there are many other issues when it comes to the track. HSV has more grip, better launch control, and possibly a driveline that needs less 'protection' from the ecu.

from a rolling start, from about 80km/h on a nice day, i'd expect it to be much much closer, and possibly a good outcome for the ford.

[fgpsi]

Will Dowling and the fat guy from carsguide still go out of their way now to say the GTS is Australia's most powerful car every opportunity they get ?

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by fgpsi

Will Dowling and the fat guy from carsguide still go out of their way now to say the GTS is Australia's most powerful car every opportunity they get ?

They have been up to now, and of course they still will.

Power = kW. Torque is not power.

Maybe they might change their wording to "fastest" to get around this.

[Trump]

Unless Ford have pulled a rabbit out of the hat and fitted better shocks and tyres, and diff bushes that don't fail in a light breeze, I sadly agree with you prydey.

[blackf6]

Cool as. But never really cared. GT is better than wearing a nappy and being a dibber dobber.

[lari au]

5.0 litre beats 6.2 litre. Fantastic little motor!!!

[cool65]

Brazil gets beaten 7-1 & now this, the world loves the underdog.

[XR6T0Y]

If you want a good laugh, head over to "Wheels Australia" on Facebook and see what all the peeps are saying.

About time (motoring) the FPV is finally not biased against

[sprint347dave]

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

Torque is king !

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

Tricky suspension , better tyres = better power down.

[Blueford260]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

Rubbish driver

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

so why is the GT-F so slow 0 to 100 and 1/4 mile,,just watched a clip with the GT-F up agaisnt the GTS .the GTS kicked its behind,,,not a good look for the last ever GT.

if its the blue GT-F against the silver GTS on drive, then its auto v manual, with the GT-F being manual. not a real apples v apples comparison. auto's are quicker these days.

GTS has wider rubber and better launch control.

[falcodore]

Originally Posted by prydey

if its the blue GT-F against the silver GTS on drive, then its auto v manual, with the GT-F being manual. not a real apples v apples comparison. auto's are quicker these days.

GTS has wider rubber and better launch control.

I'm pretty sure only the manual Gen F models have launch control. But I could be wrong.